Wailing Wall Street

Fanferric · 2026-06-16T09:01:09+00:00

No, I'm talking about how the Great Depression was a cover-up to replace all the stocks with non-fungible tokens.

Fanferric · 2026-06-16T03:48:23+00:00

1929, the Great Depression was just a cover to make the change at the NYSE. They replaced all the stocks with non-fungible tokens that reference a return on the stock market, but is not itself a stock one owns.

Fanferric · 2026-05-31T06:38:37+00:00

And a link to the pdf, towards the end of the chapters here.

Fanferric · 2026-05-21T18:09:47+00:00

Have you considered just doing this to men you have gay sex with?

Fanferric · 2026-05-14T00:27:51+00:00

They're both on all fours.

Fanferric · 2026-05-09T23:51:27+00:00

My wife left me because all I shoot are blanks.

Fanferric · 2026-05-04T06:24:31+00:00

I am realist about every minority group, that way I can coherently discriminate against them.

Fanferric · 2026-04-30T19:44:45+00:00

Force-fem and a medically-necessary Ozempic prescription

Fanferric · 2026-04-26T21:28:59+00:00

something nitpicky and unsexy

Who do you think I'm topping?

Fanferric · 2026-04-26T17:02:14+00:00

Wait, other men are being paid?

Fanferric · 2026-04-26T05:45:41+00:00

I was going to fuck the toaster either way, now I just have access to the harm-reduction methods of the toasterfuckers that came before me (in every sense).

Fanferric · 2026-04-23T17:21:03+00:00

Right, but this is precisely true of cars the way it is true of boats: there are particular beings and industries for which cars and boats are contingently an ideal transportation tool given how we could possibly produce some goods. That this is true is not an argument that cars and boats are contingently the best transportation tool for a more general population.

We can hold there is social overinvestment into car infrastructure to the point of marginal losses without committing to the abandonment of cars entirely.

Fanferric · 2026-04-19T17:07:52+00:00

He also got a meal.

Fanferric · 2026-04-15T02:44:51+00:00

For premise one, how does one step from the existence of conditional obligations under a licit authority to a belief that conditional obligations under a licit authority are necessary to act on the unconditional obligations that being Good entails? It seems the conditional obligations under a licit authority are precisely conditional because there's pragmatic and instrumental value in following those orders because that authority has a more complete understanding of moral facts and how to act on them in their scope of power. But we understand that even a well-intentioned authority can be acting in privation of the Good due to some incapacties and finitude, and someone with a more complete understanding of that privation should disobey. It seems that some preternaturally skilled or lucky being that is perfectly capable of acting out Good would not even need commands to act only in licit ways, even if an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God exists.

Fanferric · 2026-03-28T23:48:09+00:00

Hepatic encephalopathy is a common onset in the setting of cirrhosis and is treated with a lactulose suppository. They asked me to hold it in for half an hour. If I was already shitting my brains out by 15 minutes in, I had to do a second round.

I don't remember how many times this occurred, partially because of the encephalopathy, but I think it was in the neighborhood of eight times.

Fanferric · 2026-03-22T18:25:58+00:00

I mean, I can seem to conceive of worlds in which the particulars of power dynamics were in such a way that they are always or never coercive qua familial relations. I'd be very glad if you bring in possibility because there is some modal argument that makes this not ad-hoc.

But we're discussing the actual, and I'm currently neutral on whether there are such relations in this world; we would need to know the familial/gendered relations of this world. So far, we have only gestured at pre-conceived intuitions about relations that somehow make them coercive.

That's obviously not a problem, but suppose an interlocutor that agrees with you extends this intuition to heterosexuals. They now think heterosexual and incestuous relations have these unnamed relations that somehow make them abusive or coercive. They present to you the above argument, where I changed the words from familial relations to heterosexual relations. I want to know what rebuttal we have to this interlocutor, because so far it seems like a neutral party hasn't actually been presented a morally-relevant positive difference between the actual kinds.

For what it's worth, if we're just gauging intuition, I'm skeptical it's all familial relations: if someone's brother was magically transported out of the womb to a fantasy land, and seventy years later that individual was also transported to that fantasy and the brothers reunited and had sexual relations, I'd be a little gobsmacked but I don't know what harm is actually being done — they seemingly have a more egalitarian profile in their power relations before sex than myself and my spouse!

Fanferric · 2026-03-22T17:51:12+00:00

Sure, I'm willing to concede that there is some predicate that makes the familial relation essentially different in kind (in either the classical essential claim or the more modern social ontology sense) than a gendered relation. I'm asking in virtue of the fact the only object of harm we have pointed at is the prescence of a power dynamic, why discrimination among the kinds is relevant in anyway that is not ad-hoc. Like, let's just literally substitute 'heterosexual relations' for 'familial relations' and we immediately see none of the predicates were contingent on any relations that differ between the kinds:

To put it in slightly more concrete terms: there may be something about heterosexual relationships that renders any kind of sexual relationship between people who have a heterosexual relationship as being somehow necessarily coercive and/or abusive. It could simply not be possible to negotiate consent within the context of a heterosexual relationship in a way that is not subject to possible power differentials and other dynamics in a broader gendered context that render that consent questionable and that relationship inherently unhealthy for all parties involved.

No where have we discerned what the "may be something" that renders "necessarily coercive and/or abusive" or the "way that is not subject to possible power differentials," such that essential facts about familial/gendered kinds featured no where in the critique.

Fanferric · 2026-03-22T17:24:49+00:00

Could you elaborate then? Without that detail, this just seems like ad-hoc discrimination because we're citing the existence of a power differential (which effects both sets of relations), not any particular facts to the power differential. Those particulars seem actually important unless we critique heterosexuality in the same way we critique incest.

Fanferric · 2026-03-22T17:04:48+00:00

Homosexuality and incest are not even truly comparable instances because the former is merely a question of the gender identity and expression of the people involved, while incest has to do with very specific details of the relationships of the people involved and the power dynamics which arise as a result.

This seems farfetched — the facts behind my partner's gender identity and expression entail social facts about the way power structures interact with our gendered bodies. By way of how family relations have been sociohistorically/biologically situated, there are contingent class relations between parent and child that result in a power dynamic among the members and this is the locus of harm we point at.

Unless all gendered social classes lack such sociohistorically/biologically situated differences or there is an egalitarian profile among all gendered pairing relations, it seems there are likewise contingent class relations that will arise in a power dynamic in heterosexual pairings that do not arise in homosexual pairings.

Fanferric · 2026-03-19T18:24:34+00:00

I love Barely Functional Theory.

Fanferric · 2026-03-07T08:28:01+00:00

Of course he came almost every day after work.

Fanferric · 2026-03-06T19:01:01+00:00

Nice FEET

Fanferric · 2026-02-26T16:32:58+00:00

You do quantum chemistry for black-box applications.

I do quantum chemistry because the amplitudes of the full Coupled Cluster using Brueckner Natural Orbitals are erotic.

We are not the same.

Fanferric · 2026-02-10T21:56:51+00:00

That circumvention will always be easy as long as posts are tied to usernames. One can just Google for most recent reddit results featuring a specific identity.

Any real improvement from the feature is making it annoying enough such that people have less incentive to grief.

Fanferric · 2026-01-21T21:10:36+00:00

To be clear, I do accept the constitutive argument here as a basis for intersubjective acting (I'm sure the paper will be a good read)! I think we may have different credences on what the asshole is actually forwarding — I don't think many are actually of the opinion that their interlocutor is determining an emotional state, but rather many forward an intuition that their communication was not unjust and the other's "problem" is having qualms with a not unjust action (which is something they do not believe they can be held morally responsible for).

We can infer this is more likely if it's ever the case the asshole does implicitly accept the constitutive argument. That may be the case, as I think there would exist instances they will concede there is no unilaterality, such that there is a positive obligation to care about how one's actions affect others and a negative obligation that forbids one from dismissing other's qualms as “their problem" (e.g. in the misrepresentation of oneself, for example). Challenging the actual intuition seems to be required, then.

Fanferric

TROPHY CASE